Safety of coronary revascularization deferral based on fractional flow reserve and instantaneous wave-free ratio in patients with chronic kidney disease

Background: The safety of revascularization deferral according to pressure wire examination in patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) has not been fully established. Methods: From a retrospective cohort of 439 patients in whom revascularization was deferred after physiological assessment, we examined the incidence of patient-oriented composite endpoint (POCE: all-cause death, myocardial infarction [MI] and unplanned revascularization) in patients with CKD (estimated glomerular filtration rate [eGFR] < 60 mL/min/1.73 m2) and without it. Results: At 4 years of follow-up, the primary endpoint was met by 25.0% of patients with CKD and by 14.4% of patients without CKD (hazard ratio [HR] 1.56, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.96–2.53, p = 0.071). The incidence of POCE was even higher in patients with an eGFR < 30 mL/min/1.73 m2: 43.8% (HR 3.10, 95% CI 1.08–8.92, p = 0.036). However, no differences were observed in the incidence of MI (4.2% vs. 4.4% in non-CKD), target vessel revascularization (5.8% vs. 5.9%), and target vessel MI (0.8% vs. 4.6%). Conclusions: Patients with CKD in whom pressure-wire evaluation led to deferral of coronary revascularization develop more POCE in the long term, compared to patients with normal renal function. However, the increase in POCE in patients with CKD was seldom related to deferred vessels, thus suggesting an epiphenomenon of an intrinsically higher cardiovascular risk of CKD patients

Everolimus-Eluting Stents in Patients With Bare-Metal and Drug-Eluting In-Stent Restenosis Results From a Patient-Level Pooled Analysis of the RIBS IV and V Trials

Background-Treatment of patients with drug-eluting stent (DES) in-stent restenosis (ISR) is more challenging than that of patients with bare-metal stent ISR. However, the results of everolimus-eluting stents (EES) in these distinct scenarios remain unsettled.Methods and Results-A pooled analysis of the RIBS IV (Restenosis Intra-Stent of Drug-Eluting Stents: Paclitaxel-Eluting Balloon vs Everolimus-Eluting Stent) and RIBS V (Restenosis Intra-Stent of Bare Metal Stents: Paclitaxel-Eluting Balloon vs Everolimus-Eluting Stent) randomized trials was performed using patient-level data to compare the efficacy of EES in bare-metal stent ISR and DES-ISR. Inclusion and exclusion criteria were identical in both trials. Results of 94 patients treated with EES for bare-metal stent ISR were compared with those of 155 patients treated with EES for DES-ISR. Baseline characteristics were more adverse in patients with DES-ISR, although they presented later and more frequently with a focal pattern. After intervention, minimal lumen diameter (2.22 +/- 0.5 versus 2.38 +/- 0.5 mm, P=0.01) was smaller in the DES-ISR group. Late angiographic findings (89.3% of eligible patients), including minimal lumen diameter (2.03 +/- 0.7 versus 2.36 +/- 0.6 mm,